Thanks for the prompt response.
On the first point, X-JABBER/X-AIM/etc seems to be more widely adopted than IMPP. Even if it it’s not as “official” (which may not mean much in the overall mess that is the VCARD format), I could see a strong case for it to be supported (at least as an checkbox option to rewrite it when sending to server). As support for this, even when I export a contact using the stock Android Contacts app, it’s exported with the
X-JABBER: convention, not
To ask Posteo to change their convention would mean they upset all the current users who rely on the other format for interoperability. I think the responsibility should fall on the “connector” apps like DAVx5 which are in the position to provide compatibility for both widely used conventions.
I see the same sentiment echo’ed by another user here: https://forums.bitfire.at/topic/217/support-for-instant-messaging-addresses
It seems as if you’ve elected to choose to support the IMPP type. From what I can see, the X-JABBER, X-AIM, etc. are more common. Both Address Book on OS X and Xabber on Android seem to be using that scheme. IMPP is the actual standard though, so I would understand if you chose to continue onward with that.
For debugging, I reproduced as follows:
- Create this VCF file:
- Import to Posteo (Posteo does not display IMPP field but it’s retained)
- Sync with DAVx5
- Edit phone number in Android Contacts
- Sync with DAVx5
- On Posteo side, the phone number field disappears
This behavior does not occur when repeating the same in ContactsSync. I would need to repeat later to see if this occurs when importing a VCF from PC to Posteo with X-JABBER (I think it did but cannot remember). I didn’t save debugging info this time, but if still needed, can try to repeat later in my spare time.